Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 26th Oct 2010 20:59 UTC, submitted by poundsmack
So, Windows 7 has been out for a year now; the same applies to Windows Server 2008 R2. Is it time for a service pack already? Are there even any major pressing issues that need addressing, as was the case with the vanilla Windows Vista release? Well, none that I can think of, and as such, these upcoming service packs, which just entered RC stage, are incredibly boring releases.
Post a Comment
Member since:
2006-07-14
I did use XPS. Back when it was in beta. It was faster than adobe reader and it came with a utility to print to it. I was attracted by its seemingly easy to create/parse xml nature. But soon after, it mysteriously stopped working. It just wouldn't render any document at all. I tried it again when it was officially released, but it still didn't work on my system. So I haven't messed with it since. Plus, these days I only spend a few minutes of the month in windows.
Member since:2006-05-18
Member since:2005-11-09
Member since:2006-05-18
Member since:
2007-09-22
Sounds like they had a look at SPICE:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPICE_%28protocol%29
If I'm not mistaken this is exactly the kind of thing SPICE was meant for.
Edited 2010-10-26 22:51 UTC
Member since:
2007-09-22
hmm... last time I looked at it, it was a very complicated replacement for OpenID/OAuth for the corporate world which depends on having a .net-client-application installation.
That hardly sounds like interoperability to me.
I wanted to read up on it, but I was using my Linux desktop and couldn't because, even for the documentation I needed 'validation'.
Yes, very open. :-(
I'm sorry, but it just sounds like marketing drivel to me.
Why can't they just, really, for ones, create something which really is interoperable ?
Work with competitors to create common standards.
IT should be about making things easier and more efficient.
Edited 2010-10-26 23:14 UTC
Member since:2007-02-17
hmm... last time I looked at it, it was a very complicated replacement for OpenID/OAuth for the corporate world which depends on having a .net-client-application installation. That hardly sounds like interoperability to me. I wanted to read up on it, but I was using my Linux desktop and couldn't because, even for the documentation I needed 'validation'. Yes, very open. :-( I'm sorry, but it just sounds like marketing drivel to me. Why can't they just, really, for ones, create something which really is interoperable ? Work with competitors to create common standards. IT should be about making things easier and more efficient.
When I read it, and it talked about "third-party" and "interoperability", I initially had a spark of hope that Microsoft may be turning over a new leaf, and improving their behaviour.
You have managed to crush it almost instantly.
Commmon definition of "third party" when it comes to interoperability = products of another software provider, perhaps for example products from Apple or IBM.
Microsoft's definition of "third party" when it comes to interoperability = some other company also running Windows 7.
Sigh!
Will things never change?
RE[2]: federation services
by flanque on Wed 27th Oct 2010 02:46 UTC
in reply to "RE: federation services"
Member since:2005-12-15
RE[2]: federation services
by Nelson on Wed 27th Oct 2010 07:05 UTC
in reply to "RE: federation services"
Member since:2005-11-29
When I read it, and it talked about "third-party" and "interoperability", I initially had a spark of hope that Microsoft may be turning over a new leaf, and improving their behaviour.
You have managed to crush it almost instantly.
Commmon definition of "third party" when it comes to interoperability = products of another software provider, perhaps for example products from Apple or IBM.
Microsoft's definition of "third party" when it comes to interoperability = some other company also running Windows 7.
Sigh!
Will things never change?
ADFS2 is an enterprise solution, OpenID is a consumer solution.
In the enterprise space, the two mediums are WS-Federation and SAML.
BOTH which ADFS2 supports. So WHAT exactly is the big deal?
So are you going to say that SAML, the brainchild of OASIS, is not a standard?
ALSO, OpenId can be integrated into ADFS with an STS.
RE[3]: federation services
by lemur2 on Wed 27th Oct 2010 10:46 UTC
in reply to "RE[2]: federation services"
Member since:2007-02-17
ADFS2 is an enterprise solution, OpenID is a consumer solution.
In the enterprise space, the two mediums are WS-Federation and SAML.
BOTH which ADFS2 supports. So WHAT exactly is the big deal?
So are you going to say that SAML, the brainchild of OASIS, is not a standard?
ALSO, OpenId can be integrated into ADFS with an STS.
In the enterprise space, the two mediums are WS-Federation and SAML.
BOTH which ADFS2 supports. So WHAT exactly is the big deal?
So are you going to say that SAML, the brainchild of OASIS, is not a standard?
ALSO, OpenId can be integrated into ADFS with an STS.
I was responding to this:
last time I looked at it, it was a very complicated replacement for OpenID/OAuth for the corporate world which depends on having a .net-client-application installation. That hardly sounds like interoperability to me
RE[3]: federation services
by TemporalBeing on Wed 27th Oct 2010 14:54 UTC
in reply to "RE[2]: federation services"
Member since:2007-08-22
"
When I read it, and it talked about "third-party" and "interoperability", I initially had a spark of hope that Microsoft may be turning over a new leaf, and improving their behaviour.
You have managed to crush it almost instantly.
Commmon definition of "third party" when it comes to interoperability = products of another software provider, perhaps for example products from Apple or IBM.
Microsoft's definition of "third party" when it comes to interoperability = some other company also running Windows 7.
Sigh!
Will things never change?
When I read it, and it talked about "third-party" and "interoperability", I initially had a spark of hope that Microsoft may be turning over a new leaf, and improving their behaviour.
You have managed to crush it almost instantly.
Commmon definition of "third party" when it comes to interoperability = products of another software provider, perhaps for example products from Apple or IBM.
Microsoft's definition of "third party" when it comes to interoperability = some other company also running Windows 7.
Sigh!
Will things never change?
ADFS2 is an enterprise solution, OpenID is a consumer solution. "
So Active Directory Federation Services (http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/adfs2%28WS.10%29...) means support for third-party? Sorry, but that's really a Microsoft only technology.
In the enterprise space, the two mediums are WS-Federation and SAML.
Okay, biting here:
WS-Federation seems to be more-or-less led by IBM and an industry conglomeration:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WS-Federation
http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/library/specification/ws-fed/
So I can kinda buy that one.
So are you going to say that SAML, the brainchild of OASIS, is not a standard?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_Assertion_Markup_Language
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=security
Okay I can buy that too.
BOTH which ADFS2 supports.
ALSO, OpenId can be integrated into ADFS with an STS.
ADFS/ADFS2 is not third-party. It's Microsoft lock-in. Sure it may support some level of integration into third-party systems via SAML/WS-Federation but it's still Microsoft lock-in in their traditional EEE methodology, and they probably support just enough to maintain compliance and add enough "enhancements" to keep people on their platform.
So WHAT exactly is the big deal?
The big deal is (i) Microsoft EEE history, and (ii) the fact that it may require a .Net application (on one or both sides) to integrate it.
It's okay if you require the .Net application on the Windows system to make it work with OpenID/etc - that's just putting the glue in place.
It's another when you need to have it on the other side to integrate due to Microsoft "enhancements" for the EEE methodology.
From the parent, it sounds like the .Net application is required in more places than just on the singular Windows authentication source - e.g. on the Win2k8 AD Server(s).
The b
RE[4]: federation services
by Nelson on Wed 27th Oct 2010 15:50 UTC
in reply to "RE[3]: federation services"
Member since:2005-11-29
ADFS/ADFS2 is not third-party. It's Microsoft lock-in. Sure it may support some level of integration into third-party systems via SAML/WS-Federation but it's still Microsoft lock-in in their traditional EEE methodology, and they probably support just enough to maintain compliance and add enough "enhancements" to keep people on their platform.
It FULLY passes SAML 2.0 (the latest profile) compliance tests, and has FULL WS-Federation support. This is not built ontop of proprietary Microsoft commmunication mediums, it is ALL interoperable.
In fact, when Microsoft saw SAML was catching on, they stopped ADFS2's release and implemented it.
The big deal is (i) Microsoft EEE history, and (ii) the fact that it may require a .Net application (on one or both sides) to integrate it.
It's okay if you require the .Net application on the Windows system to make it work with OpenID/etc - that's just putting the glue in place.
ADFS is a .NET solution for Windows shops, which can interop with non .NET solutions from non Windows shops (such as service providers from OpenId, or centralized trusted entities from SAML/WS-Federation)
It's another when you need to have it on the other side to integrate due to Microsoft "enhancements" for the EEE methodology.
You really don't, ADFS2 just happens to be written in .NET, since it is a solution for Windows customers ..
It's like claiming WCF isn't interoperable because it's .NET, despite it using every possible binding under the sun.
From the parent, it sounds like the .Net application is required in more places than just on the singular Windows authentication source - e.g. on the Win2k8 AD Server(s).
The b
Sounds (and looks) can be deceiving, because this is not the case. This is an ASP.NET solution.
I really wish people would comment on things that they have developed for in the real world. This is why conversations never move forward, and everyone is stuck with such lingering misconceptions.
There are valid criticisms to be levied against Microsoft (like Live authentication OpenID rollout being nearly nonexistent), but ADFS2 cannot be faulted for what is impeccable interop.
They're damned if they do, damned if they don't. If they had implemented one or the other, people would bitch, or if they had implemented their own thing, people would yell to the high heavens. This is why ADFS2 like CardSpace is really agnostic about what it uses behind the scenes.
Edited 2010-10-27 15:51 UTC
RE[5]: federation services
by TemporalBeing on Wed 27th Oct 2010 17:25 UTC
in reply to "RE[4]: federation services"
Member since:2007-08-22
Sounds (and looks) can be deceiving, because this is not the case. This is an ASP.NET solution.
True, which is why I referenced the parent. That said, ASP.Net is MS-only; while there are a couple unix/linux ASP solutions, none are worth anything. But I also find ASP/ASP.Net extremely limiting and dysfunctional - but that's a different story altogether.
I really wish people would comment on things that they have developed for in the real world. This is why conversations never move forward, and everyone is stuck with such lingering misconceptions.
Thus this conversation, which as gone somewhere. Thanks for pointing out it's full compliance. Hopefully it'll stay that way and won't succumb to MS's EEE philosophy.
There are valid criticisms to be levied against Microsoft (like Live authentication OpenID rollout being nearly nonexistent), but ADFS2 cannot be faulted for what is impeccable interop.
ADFS/ADFS2 is pure MS technology for MS products. It in itself is MS EEE as AD is purposely designed NOT to interop with other systems. Glad to see MS providing some capabilities to interop with others, but they don't have a very good track history of maintaining those interops - they usually do it long enough to get swept along and then once they have enough staying power they continue the EEE philosophy to marginalize everyone else so they are the only remaining player.
They're damned if they do, damned if they don't. If they had implemented one or the other, people would bitch, or if they had implemented their own thing, people would yell to the high heavens. This is why ADFS2 like CardSpace is really agnostic about what it uses behind the scenes.
Only due to their own EEE history, and how they use interop to play into it. If they were showed they were leaving that philosophy behind by continuously supporting standards at 100% compliance without requiring their own "enhancements" then people will pick up on that. But so long as they embrace a standard only to apply their EEE philosophy, people will continue to call them on it.
RE[6]: federation services
by Nelson on Wed 27th Oct 2010 18:22 UTC
in reply to "RE[5]: federation services"
Member since:2005-11-29
I think your worries are warranted given their history, but at least in their .NET stack, interoperability is their M.O.
WCF supports more formats and mediums than you can shake a stick at, and instead of decreasing it's been steady improving.
Then there's their Entity Framework which interops with nearly every big name database solution out there, and supports plugging more in.
RE[6]: federation services
by Lennie on Thu 28th Oct 2010 21:02 UTC
in reply to "RE[5]: federation services"
Member since:2007-09-22
Member since:
2005-07-20
From what I've been told, the HDMI fixes in the Windows 7 SP are going to be great. Well, for me anyway.
I use a HDMI switcher to select source from Bluray, DVR or my computer. It's really annoying because I can't get audio after switching HDMI to the computer unless I log out and log in again.
I know, weird right?
The fix for that is supposedly one of the HDMI fixes that are in this SP so I am looking forward to it.
Member since:
2010-02-24
It's an OS. A piece of software that runs on hardware.
What could possibly be entertaining about upgrades to the functionality and other aspects?
This is why I throw up a little in my mouth, each time I hear a representative or a reviewer say "I'm very excited...".
If people would just stop using the word "excited", the world would be a better place.
Member since:2005-12-15
Member since:2009-04-05
Member since:
2005-07-12
Member since:2005-12-15
RE[2]: Not Many Updates
by BluenoseJake on Wed 27th Oct 2010 11:18 UTC
in reply to "RE: Not Many Updates"
Member since:2005-08-11
RE[3]: Not Many Updates
by mkools on Wed 27th Oct 2010 12:48 UTC
in reply to "RE[2]: Not Many Updates"
Member since:2005-10-11
RE[4]: Not Many Updates
by BluenoseJake on Wed 27th Oct 2010 13:47 UTC
in reply to "RE[3]: Not Many Updates"
Member since:2005-08-11
So actually it's Windows Vista R2, but since Vista has a bad name they changed it to Windows 7 to make it look like a new major release far away from Vista. Just clever marketing.
No, it's Windows NT 6.1
Vista was NT 6.0
Windows 2003 was NT 5.2
XP was 5.1
Win2k was 5.0
NT 4.0 was well, NT 4.0
You can try to make it as many snide comments as you want, but Win7 is faster and less resource heavy then Vista. It's refinement, and that is reflected in the version number. Major version 6 (same as Vista) Minor version 1 (incremented from Vista)
The marketing name (Windows Vista, Windows 7, Windows XP) has nothing to do with the version.
Edited 2010-10-27 13:47 UTC
RE[5]: Not Many Updates
by Tuishimi on Wed 27th Oct 2010 18:55 UTC
in reply to "RE[4]: Not Many Updates"
Member since:2005-07-06
I actually still had the disks up until a fews years ago when I moved. Of course I had no hardware left that it could run on.
RE[6]: Not Many Updates
by BluenoseJake on Thu 28th Oct 2010 01:27 UTC
in reply to "RE[5]: Not Many Updates"
Member since:2005-08-11
Member since:
2005-12-02